Studies of various chronic myeloid leukemia cell lines show that ivermectin kills these lines by inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and the production of free radicals.
In mice with leukemia, ivermectin increases the influx of chloride ions in the cells, promoting cell death.
When ivermectin is combined with two chemotherapy drugs, free radical production is further increased. Ivermectin also reverses drug resistance in chemotherapy-resistant leukemia cells.
Targeting Constitutively Active STAT3 in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Clinical Trial of the STAT3 Inhibitor Pyrimethamine with Pharmacodynamic Analyses
I wouldn't consider The Epoch Times a reliable medical news source. It's certainly not a source of factual medical research reporting. Things can work on cells in a test tube, but have toxic effects in living creatures at doses high enough to get the wanted therapeutic effect.
It is very true that Epoch Times is a questionable source, known for fostering pseudo science theories, so thats a fair point to make:
Further, the Epoch Times frequently publishes pseudoscience news, such as Supernormal Abilities Developed Through Meditation: Dr. Dean Radin Discusses. They also publish false claims from Pseudoscience and anti-vaccination activist Joeseph Mercola who has a long track record of publishing misinformation. Finally, the above referenced NBC News report states, “In addition to claims that alien abductions are real and the “deep state engineered the drug epidemic,” the channel pushes the QAnon conspiracy theory, which falsely posits that the same “Spygate” cabal is a front for a global pedophile ring being taken down by Trump.”
Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks. (M. Huitsing 8/21/2017) (Updated 05/22/mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-...
It’s also noteworthy that the article is written by Marina Zhang with Epoch Times. Zhang has written a very significant number of anti vaccine articles, not just for covid.
That said, some of the people involved in studying ivermectin appear to be legitimate scientists.
But consistent with your observation, test tube studies fall far short of proof it works in humans and the there appear to be few large scale studies.
I am skeptical of ivermectin as some cure for covid or cancer because the support for it almost always seems to come from doctors or writers who share politically motivated opinions, opinions that most mainstream doctors and scientists consider fringe and pseudo science. We saw many articles similar to this promoting ivermectin as a covid cure, even though the vast majority of the scientific community found no evidence to prove that.
But I’m all about new and effective cancer drugs. It would be awesome if ivermectin became a new arrow in our quiver of leukemia treatments. I’m just not very optimistic, and I fully expected upon reading the title of the article that it would up being published by a news source known for promoting conspiracy theories.
I do think the article was worth posting by Craterlake as I think it important to keep an open mind on such things and, there does appear to be some credible medical facilities involved in the research.
There are a few clinical studies going on, and it could indeed work well as an adjunct. I just don't like the sensationalistic article writing. It reminds me of American drug advertising. Side effects are minimized, and the "possibility" of disease minimization or eradication is presented as a fait accompli.
SofiaDeo is correct regarding this reported research, when she says that "Things can work on cells in a test tube, but have toxic effects in living creatures at doses high enough to get the wanted therapeutic effect." The article is conjectural with regard to ivermectin's possible benefit in human cancers as noted in the article title. To the author's credit, she does state that the research is based on mostly animal cell lines.
With my emphasis; Ivermectin Could Be a ‘Powerful Drug’ for Fighting Cancer–Here’s Why
.. tumors continued to grow in mice given ivermectin alone, meaning that the drug is not enough by itself. Dr. Lee reasoned that ivermectin could synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitor anti-PD1, an immunotherapy drug.
.. “Ivermectin has a lot of promise for cancer but probably not as a stand-alone treatment,” Dr. Lee said.
:
Ivermectin successfully reduced their activities in an animal model.
However, the researchers ultimately decided against pursuing clinical trials, as there were concerns of potential neurotoxicity since mice were given a dose of 10 milligrams per kilogram, which was much higher than the dose prescribed for parasitic diseases.
:
However, since patients are given a combination of drugs, he is uncertain if patients’ improvements are due to ivermectin, the overall drug combination, or the other drugs in the protocol.
:
Its use in some cancer types is more well-researched than others, although most of the research has not been conducted in humans but in human cell lines or animals.
:
Leukemia
Studies of various chronic myeloid leukemia cell lines show that ivermectin kills these lines by inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and the production of free radicals.
In summary, the potential benefit of ivermectin for people with cancer is anecdotal, there's no specific CLL research, researchers note ivermectin will probably need to be used in conjunction with other drugs and there is the issue of potential neurotoxicity.
Hi Neil , i was thinking that if the ivermectin does work along with the 2 chemo drugs that they were using and then you combine that cocktail with the fasting mimicking diet that they have already researched and determined that it enhances the chemos effectiveness before and after the infusions , it could be a real game changer for chemo treatments ... as soon as i get a report on my lung x ray i will do a report on my O&V treatments..
With respect to your post and your treatment, your title "Ivermectin helps with cancer treatments" more accurately should have been 'may help with cancer treatments". There's a relevant parallel with your treatment and my clinical trial treatment of acalabrutinib +venetoclax and obinutuzumab. where I was assigned to the arm with obinutuzumab added to A+V. There was considerable debate among specialists as to whether the addition of obinutuzumab provided sufficient benefit to counter the increased toxicity. Long term follow-up has found that there is indeed a benefit from adding obinutuzumab, but it's only slight.
I do consider the "powerful drug" mention in the article title as over-hype. It's like calling either acalabrutinib or obinutuzumab in combination venetoclax powerful drugs, whereas it's venetoclax which is the most powerful drug.
Adding fast mimicking or exercise to drug protocols may help improve treatment effectiveness, but the patient needs to be able to tolerate doing them - and that's not easy when your are feeling very fatigued, nauseous and with diarrhoea, reducing your nutrient uptake and disturbing your electrolyte balance. We need to keep in mind too, that positive results from clinical trials are not often seen to the same degree when the treatment protocol is in general use. Clinical trial inclusion and exclusion criteria are selected to improve the chances of clinical trial success. Remember that the aim of a clinical trial is to gain regulatory approval. That's aided by optimal selection of trial participants, participants who are more closely monitored and supported than is the case for non-clinical trial participants.
Thanks for the reply Neil ,, i was wondering about the trials ... i have read a several guidelines for who is eligible for a trial ..... and i realize they are looking for specific patients but it almost seems like they are cooking the books ...i was turned down for a trial a couple of years ago for O&V ... i was glad they turned me down when i found out all the testing and other procedures involved .....i'll will do a little research on the doctor who is giving a factual report that the ivermectin with the chemo helped her patients .... have a safe week end .. blessings , james
I don't think it's so much "cooking the books" as, ideally they want patients who don't have other diseases, taking other drugs, that may confound results. They are ideally looking for patients who either aren't on other meds, or on the most commonly used ones that large parts of the population take. Especially when looking at "side effect" percentages. Things like nausea & vomiting aren't generally attributed to other diseases, but cardiac or liver or other effects might be.
The other thing about an article like this, is that the fact the doses used are hundreds of times higher than what is currently used for disease treatment, is barely mentioned.
There is a concept in medicine about drugs/chemicals called "LD50". It's the dose that kills 50% of the test subjects. This is the concept where something that works in a test tube on cells, may not be realistic to use in the body. Even if a drug works, if the amount needed gets anywhere near the LD50 in animals, researchers generally won't push for clinical trials in humans.
These LD50's change across species. In mice, the LD50 for ivermectin is around 25 mg/kg. In rats, it's around 50 mg/kg. In monkeys, they know it's greater than 24mg/kg. So in this article, where the dose used is 10mg/kg in mice, that's pretty hefty. In humans the drug comes in 3mg and 6mg tablets, and is dosed *one time* based on weight. So a 70-odd kg weight person gets a *total dose* of 10mg, not *10mg/kg*. The mice got what, 70 times the dose used for the other diseases, which is halfway to the LD50? So just because something "works" doesn't mean it works at a dose that can be safely given.
And non-medical, less factual sites often gloss over facts like this when reporting. It's why we say "don't look to Dr. Goggle to get facts about CLL". Because all the sites that want clicks will put up catchy headlines to get people to read them, regardless of how they are cherry picking statements to write their articles. IMO "news" nowadays is more about limbic stimulation to get people sucked in, not factual reporting.
Remember that we are moving away from any sort of chemotherapy in CLL so, even if this works, it will probably not find favour over our current novel and targeted treatments.
I have read articles about ivermectin as well. It is something I would definitely try if I was experiencing failure of treatment. Another drug of interest to me is fenbendazole. Last March I was on death’s doorstep… I only had about two weeks to live. While waiting and hoping to get approval for off label drug use of Pirtobrutibin, I took a one course dosage of fenbendazole, which I think was three days worth. My platelets were down to six prior to taking that medication and increased to 12 immediately after I believe that was due to the fenbendazole. However, I only took one because I was able to get that new drug I mentioned for me that put me into a remission, and then I went on for a bone marrow transplant at Mayo Clinic in Arizona.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
MRD Testing after treatment. Help!
Chemo-Free Treatment Best Option for CLL Patients Under 70
Canadian Study...treatment increases risk of secondary cancers in CLL
